This has always been my understanding and practice. 489.128 has no application unless scope of work falls under the defined scopes of "contractor" under definitions of Ch. 489. You won't find painting or flooring installation under definition of contractor at 489. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 8, 2015, at 7:58 AM, Weintraub, Lee <lweintraub@bplegal.com> wrote: > > 713.02, which deprives unlicensed contractors of liens, references 489.128, which only requires a license "required by this part." "This part" only requires state licenses. I don't think a local license requirement is relevant to the analysis of whether one can lien. > > > > Lee A. Weintraub > Shareholder > Board Certified in Construction Law > Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group > Vice Chair, Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group > > Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. > 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 > Tel: 954.985.4147 | Fax: 954.985.4176 | lweintraub@bplegal.com > www.bplegal.com > > > Visit www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com today! > > > The Becker & Poliakoff Client CARE Center is here to serve our valued clients. If you have a question, please call us toll-free at 1-844-CAREBP1 (1-844-227-3271) or by email at care@bplegal.com. > -----Original Message----- > From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Fred Dudley > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 7:52 AM > To: Gibbons, Michael; Sean A. Mickley > Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?: > > I believe that either a state OR local license is required for such improvements, subject to the $1,000 "handyman" exemption found in s. 489.103(9); however, since the contract price exceeds this amount, that exemption is not applicable. > > I suggest that the local licensing requirements be considered. > > Fred R. Dudley, Partner > Board Certified Construction Lawyer > Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L. > SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301 > 3522 Thomasville Road > Tallahassee, Florida 32308 > Cell: (850) 294-3471 > Direct: (850)692-6368 > dudley@mylicenselaw.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of Gibbons, Michael > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:00 PM > To: Sean A. Mickley > Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?: > > If the scope of work doesn't require a state license but the handyman is doing work improving the property (e.g. Painting, carpet or tile install) the work would be lienable regardless of non-state licensure under Ch. 489. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Sean A. Mickley <smickley@gouldcooksey.com> wrote: >> >> Does a handyman performing repairs and improvements in excess of $2,500 which do not require a license have lien rights on the property? >> >> I understand that florida law requires a contractor be licensed in order to lien property, but it does not require a license for material men or laborers to lien the property. Arguably, the handyman is a hybrid between the two. I would appreciate any insight on this issue. >> >> My initial conclusion is that the handyman does not have lien rights but I'd like to gather your collective thoughts. >> >> Sean A. Mickley, Esq. >> Gould Cooksey Fennell, P.A. >> 979 Beachland Blvd. >> Vero Beach, FL 32963 >> 772-231-1100 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CLC-Discussion mailing list >> CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org >> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > > This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > CLC-Discussion mailing list > CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > > > _______________________________________________ > CLC-Discussion mailing list > CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

BUT if a local license is required for such work, the failure be licensed may still be a defense to a lien. Fred R. Dudley, Partner Board Certified Construction Lawyer Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L. SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301 3522 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Cell: (850) 294-3471 Direct: (850)692-6368 dudley@mylicenselaw.com -----Original Message----- From: Gibbons, Michael [mailto:Michael.Gibbons@lowndes-law.com] Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 9:06 AM To: Weintraub, Lee Cc: Fred Dudley; Sean A. Mickley; clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?: This has always been my understanding and practice. 489.128 has no application unless scope of work falls under the defined scopes of "contractor" under definitions of Ch. 489. You won't find painting or flooring installation under definition of contractor at 489. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 8, 2015, at 7:58 AM, Weintraub, Lee <lweintraub@bplegal.com> wrote: > > 713.02, which deprives unlicensed contractors of liens, references 489.128, which only requires a license "required by this part." "This part" only requires state licenses. I don't think a local license requirement is relevant to the analysis of whether one can lien. > > > > Lee A. Weintraub > Shareholder > Board Certified in Construction Law > Chair, Public Private Partnerships Practice Group Vice Chair, > Construction Law and Litigation Practice Group > > Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. > 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 | Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 > Tel: 954.985.4147 | Fax: 954.985.4176 | lweintraub@bplegal.com > www.bplegal.com > > > Visit www.floridaconstructionlawauthority.com today! > > > The Becker & Poliakoff Client CARE Center is here to serve our valued clients. If you have a question, please call us toll-free at 1-844-CAREBP1 (1-844-227-3271) or by email at care@bplegal.com. > -----Original Message----- > From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org > [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of > Fred Dudley > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 7:52 AM > To: Gibbons, Michael; Sean A. Mickley > Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?: > > I believe that either a state OR local license is required for such improvements, subject to the $1,000 "handyman" exemption found in s. 489.103(9); however, since the contract price exceeds this amount, that exemption is not applicable. > > I suggest that the local licensing requirements be considered. > > Fred R. Dudley, Partner > Board Certified Construction Lawyer > Dudley, Sellers & Healy, P. L. > SunTrust Financial Center, Suite 301 > 3522 Thomasville Road > Tallahassee, Florida 32308 > Cell: (850) 294-3471 > Direct: (850)692-6368 > dudley@mylicenselaw.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org > [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of > Gibbons, Michael > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:00 PM > To: Sean A. Mickley > Cc: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] Lien Right?: > > If the scope of work doesn't require a state license but the handyman is doing work improving the property (e.g. Painting, carpet or tile install) the work would be lienable regardless of non-state licensure under Ch. 489. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Sean A. Mickley <smickley@gouldcooksey.com> wrote: >> >> Does a handyman performing repairs and improvements in excess of $2,500 which do not require a license have lien rights on the property? >> >> I understand that florida law requires a contractor be licensed in order to lien property, but it does not require a license for material men or laborers to lien the property. Arguably, the handyman is a hybrid between the two. I would appreciate any insight on this issue. >> >> My initial conclusion is that the handyman does not have lien rights but I'd like to gather your collective thoughts. >> >> Sean A. Mickley, Esq. >> Gould Cooksey Fennell, P.A. >> 979 Beachland Blvd. >> Vero Beach, FL 32963 >> 772-231-1100 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CLC-Discussion mailing list >> CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org >> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > > This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by > Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > CLC-Discussion mailing list > CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > > > _______________________________________________ > CLC-Discussion mailing list > CLC-Discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/clc-discussion > This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com